TheReligiousLeft.org

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

The American Academy of Religion held it’s annual conference in San
Francisco this past weekend. A large gathering that attracts many of the
big shots – both progressive and conservative – in religious studies,
the AAR meeting provides a space for critical dialogue about religion
and the world. Not surprisingly there was a lack of discussion about
atheism. But I was pleased to find one panel discussion on Monday
morning called, “Beyond Atheistic and Religious Fundamentalism:
Imagining the Common Good in the Public Sphere.” However, my excitement
quickly turned to disappointment when I realized they forgot to do one
important thing: include an atheist.

After the panel, I asked the organizer John Thatamanil of Union Seminary why there was no atheist included in a panel about atheism.
He responded that in the quest for diversity he was bound to leave
someone out. “Yes,” I said, “but this is a panel about atheism and you
left out an atheist.” He responded that there was a Buddhist on the
panel and they are atheists. However, it was a scholar of
Buddhism on the panel and just because someone is a scholar of a
particular religion it doesn’t mean they are practitioners. I have no
idea what this persons beliefs are. But that is beside the point
because the Buddhist scholar didn’t represent atheist positions, nor
did he defend atheism from the attacks by the other panelists but
rather commented on how he felt Buddhism and the Buddha would see this
debate.

I then asked the panels presiding member Reza Aslan author of No god but God
why there was no atheist included. To his credit he responded he had
thought there would have been an atheist on the panel and was
disappointed that there wasn’t. Fair enough. However, he didn’t seem
concerned during the panel or discussion. One panelist spoke
about Judaism, another Buddhism and the third about religion in a global
context. Aslan then responded to their comments and added his own. By
then he was well aware atheism wasn’t being represented. And the lack
of an atheist voice didn’t give him any pause when critiquing atheism or
the new atheists. Aslan could have expressed his concern in public
saying that the discussion was limited by the lack of someone
representing atheism. He also could have asked the organizer before
hand who was scheduled to ensure an atheist was included.

I also challenged Aslan for easily dismissing the claim that
atheists are persecuted in this country. I told him that atheists face
discrimination on a daily basis. I shared the story
about Damon Fowler, a graduating senior at a High School in Louisiana
who protested that the school was officially sanctioning a Christian
prayer during the commencement ceremony. As a result, Fowler was kicked
out of his parents home, publicly demeaned by a high school teacher,
physically threatened and ostracized by his community. Aslan responded
that this was merely anecdotal and that fundamentalist Christians often
say they are under attack by secularists. Yes, but I explained that
America is both Christian and religiously hegemonic i.e. language,
morals, customs, laws and beliefs are heavily shaped by these
influences. Furthermore, this hegemony is often institutionalized. For
example, you can’t become president of the U.S. without being
Christian. School boards work to exclude the science and history in
textbooks which threatens their conservative understanding of
Christianity. And of course being religious is better than being
atheist in the U.S., regardless of your tradition. Polls show that
Americans would vote for a Muslim before they would an atheist.

Aslan wasn’t the only one skeptical of atheists claims of
persecution. Julia Belser, visiting assistant Professor of Women’s
studies and Jewish Ethics at Harvard responded to Aslan’s comment about
atheists falsely being under attack by saying that it is hard to
imagine a group that isn’t under siege today. Miroslav Volf, of Yale
University went further suggesting that most people who think they are
under siege actually aren’t. It’s just a “siege mentality,” he said.
Would these panelists say the same about racism or sexism? Can we
dismiss them because everyone experiences some form of attack or
suffers from “siege mentality?” No, of course not. Don’t get me wrong.
I’m not saying that atheist discrimination is the same as racism or
sexism. But it is real and institutions reproduce it. This just reveals
that like most religious scholars, leaders or practitioners these
panelists still have a huge amount to learn about Christian and
religious hegemony and the lived experience of atheists in this country.
If you still have doubts that atheists face discrimination just read
this piece by author Greta Christina called the “10 Scariest States to Be An Atheist.” Here’s another.

I’m not writing this to castigate Aslan or the other panelists. Both
Aslan and John Thatamanil were very friendly and open to my concerns.
Nor am I saying this because I am an atheist or because I agree entirely
with the new atheists. As I told Aslan, I’ve written extensive
critiques of Christopher Hitchens, the new atheists and other atheist
writers. I’m actually studying in a progressive Unitarian Universalist
seminary which includes people of all different faiths as well as
atheists and agnostics. But I do understand that atheists experience
discrimination and have publicly defended
them. As someone dedicated to countering oppression I believe that I
have a responsibility to learn what it’s like for atheists to live in a
culture of religious and Christian hegemony. Furthermore, it’s
important to see how atheism is mitigated by racism, gender, class and
geographical location. Despite me being in such a radically inclusive
tradition I am still part of the dominant culture and thus, I believe,
have a special obligation to challenge religious hegemony.

My hope is to inspire religious scholars, leaders and practitioners
to listen to the every day concerns that atheists speak about.
Unfortunately these experiences are largely lost in the high profile
debates that focus mainly around God. And, honestly, I really don’t
think most religiously affiliated people care about atheists. But that’s
exactly why the panels like the one at the AAR should include positive
voices for atheists. They can help shift the discourse from being so
anti-atheist as there are still many stereotypes and prejudicial beliefs
about atheists that dominate the day. Someone like Sikivu Hutchinson
is an excellent example of who could be included. She is the author of Moral Combat: Black Atheists, Gender Politics and the Values Wars.
An academic, writer and public speaker her work is a reasoned approach
to atheism and religion that avoids the extremes but which also
includes issues of race, class and gender.

What’s it like to be you? This is a question that the religiously
affiliated should be asking of atheists of all backgrounds who live in a
culture that prioritizes Christian morals, language and customs. This,
it would seem to me, is the best religious response to atheism that I can imagine.

Robert James Scofield, "Be," is a San Francisco based activist working to combine spirituality with anti-racism and social justice. Be is the founder of God Bless the Whole World, a free online resource with hundreds of videos of leading visionaries related to social justice and spirituality. He writes for Tikkun magazine and his work has appeared on Alternet.org, IntegralWorld and FactNet.